Re: netpbm vs. pbmplus
'Raul Miller wrote:'
> Didn't you see my example of the Slackware sysadmin who would
> rather ftp /usr/bin/netpbm.tar from a Debian box rather than
> recompile from source? Organized subdirectories make many things
> easier, add flexibility, and make the system easier to explore.
>It's asking a lot for debian packages to be organized in a way that
>makes it easier to upgrade Slackware systems that don't want to use
I was thinking more of the case where I'm called in as a consultant to
install netpbm. I could save a lot of work leveraging off Debian. As
a Debian user, I'd hope that my distribution gave me leaverage even
when I find myself in other environments. Moreover, this is only one
example of how foresight in laying out the filesystem structure could
save others lots of time and effort. Others are easily constructed.
[Demonstration that dpkg can handle the examples I gave as an attempt
to show the complexity involved in puting netpbm and others in
My examples seem to have distracted from the point: Ought Debian's
filesystem arrangement be flexible to Everyone (using the standard
paradigm of subdirectories and the standard Unix toolbox), or do we
require that everyone learn how to use dpkg in order to do complex
system administration tasks? Given Ian Jackson's request that everyone
use dselect and not dpkg, I think we shouldn't rely on users learning
anything about dpkg (unless they choose to of course). Hence we should
make system administration manageable given only the standard Unix
toolkit. Hence my request that subdirectories be used to segregate
large packages out of the already massive /usr/bin.
Christopher J. Fearnley | UNIX SIG Leader at PACS
firstname.lastname@example.org | (Philadelphia Area Computer Society)
http://www.netaxs.com/~cjf | Design Science Revolutionary
ftp://ftp.netaxs.com/people/cjf | Explorer in Universe
"Dare to be Naive" -- Bucky Fuller | Linux Advocate